MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Review: The development of family quality of life concepts and measures

2011· review· en· W1531272568 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Disability Research · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual disabilityContext (archaeology)Perspective (graphical)Quality of life (healthcare)Construct (python library)Intervention (counseling)PsychologyConceptual frameworkGerontologySociologyMedicineSocial sciencePsychiatryComputer sciencePsychotherapistGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Historically, intervention programmes in intellectual and developmental disabilities have targeted the individual's special needs independent of the family and environmental context. This trend has been changing over the past two decades. This paper presents a literature review on changing trends in family support and the development of family quality of life (FQOL) and intellectual disability from a construct to a theory. The evolution of research in quality of life from the perspective of the individual with the disability to the family is described. A description of the development of FQOL measures is included, specifically an introduction and comparison of the two leading comprehensive initiatives on measuring FQOL - international FQOL project and the FQOL initiative of the Beach Center on Disability, in the USA. This paper provides the conceptual background and context to the other papers presented in this special issue, which focus on FQOL measurement in specific contexts.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.007
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.629
GPT teacher head0.579
Teacher spread0.049 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it